Home / Markets
Monday, July 07, 2008
Coca-Cola Agrees to Pay $137.5M to Settle Shareholder Suit
Associated Press
ATLANTA--The Coca-Cola Co., the world's largest beverage maker, has agreed to pay $137.5 million to settle a shareholder lawsuit that claimed company officials misrepresented or omitted information in public statements, causing the company's stock price to be inflated.
The Atlanta-based company did not admit any wrongdoing in settling the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta, according to the agreement dated June 26 and entered July 3.
The court has preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled a settlement fairness hearing for Oct. 20.
The lead plaintiffs in the suit were the Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity and Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund, now called 1199 SEIU Greater New York Pension Fund.
The class represented by the plaintiffs included all persons who bought Coca-Cola stock between Oct. 21, 1999 and March 6, 2000.
The complaint by the institutional investors alleged that certain material facts concerning Coca-Cola (KO) and the condition of its business and financial results were misrepresented and omitted from various public statements purportedly made by the defendants, causing the price of Coke stock to be inflated artificially.
Over the last several years, there had been rounds of mediation and settlement discussions, court records show.
The agreement says that Coca-Cola and the other defendants, who include several former top executives of the company, continue to deny all substantive allegations of wrongdoing. The defendants believe they would ultimately prevail, but have considered the risk and expense of going forward and, therefore, decided to settle, court records show
Fox Business Video
-
-
Helping Veterans Land Jobs
-
Jul 2, 2009
Baird on Helping Soldiers
-
-
-
President's Plans Working
-
Jul 2, 2009
Goodstein on Stimulus Success
-
-
-
Jackson Lives On
-
Jul 2, 2009
Beck on Future of Jackson
-
-
-
$20 Dollars a Gallon
-
Jul 2, 2009
Paying More to Save Economy
-
-
-
Looking for the Road to Recovery
-
Jul 2, 2009
Morris on Unemployment
-
FOX Translator
No data currently available.
No data currently available.
Sure, we know some of you are saying the term "marriage penalty" is redundant. In fact, of all the costs associated with getting married (have you seen the cost of a wedding cake lately?), the marriage penalty can be the worst.
Here's how it works: Mr. and Mrs. Right walk down the aisle in wedded bliss and suddenly they¿re a two-income household. If both make roughly the same amount of money, they can be pushed into a higher tax bracket. That's bad, since the higher the bracket, the higher the tax. So, if both were single, they'd end up writing two smaller checks to the tax man that, if combined, would add up to less than the giant check they write in a state of wedded bliss.
Is that fair? We're not touching that, but there is a flip side that few people talk about. The marriage penalty only kicks in if both members of the couple make close to the same amount of money. If there's a big disparity in pay, there's actually a tax advantage. Call it the marriage bonus.
And, it¿s important to remember that there are other financial benefits, such as lower life-insurance rates or health care premiums, that can make up for the extra tax couples pay. So don't let Uncle Sam stop you from saying, "I do."
